Washback yarmohammadi
#'‘'Washback is generally defined as the influence of testing on teaching and learning’''' #. The concept of washback is therefore part of what Messick #calls consequential validity.As part of consequential validity,Messick #says that: #Washback refers to the extent to which the introduction and use of a test #influences language teachers and learners to do things that they would not #otherwise do that promote or inhibit language learning. #The focus of washback study has therefore been on those things that we do in the #classroom because of the test, but ‘would not otherwise do’. If the concept of #washback is to have any meaning, it is necessary to identify what changes in learning #or teaching can be directly attributed to the use of the test in that context. #Traditionally, this has meant creating an empirical link between a negative #consequence and a source of invalidity. Messick reiterates this with #regard to washback: #The primary measurement concern with respect to adverse consequences #is that negative washback or, indeed, any negative impact on individuals #or groups should not derive from any source of test invalidity such as #construct under-representation or construct-irrelevant variance. #The argument would be that unless negative washback can be traced to such sources #of test invalidity, it is not possible to ask the test designer to take responsibility for #the negative washback. Alderson #has partially come to #accept this view,while also forcefully arguing that language testers cannot disengage #from understanding the forces of washback on what happens within the classroom, #as an interaction effect from test, society, educational system, schools, and the #individuals involved in decision making # '''Exploring the concept of washback #The term ‘washback’ is itself a neutral one, and can be related to ‘influence’. If the test #is ‘poor’, then the washback may be felt to be negative. But if the Washback Hypothesis #holds, then good tests should have good effectsrather than negative #effects. #The Washback Hypothesis seems to assume that teachers and learners do things they #''would not necessarily otherwise do because of the test. Hence the notion of influence. But #this also implies that a ‘poor’ test could conceivably have a ‘good’ effect if it made #teachers and learners do ‘good’ things they would not otherwise do #The most obvious such effect is anxiety in the learner brought about #by having to take a test of whatever nature, and, if not anxiety, then at least concern #in teachers, if they believe that some consequence will follow on poor performance #by the pupils. #Thus pressure produces abnormal performance, the fear of which produces #anxiety. In addition, the fear of the consequences of particular performances produces #anxiety which will influence those performances. Similarly for teachers, the fear of poor #results, and the associated guilt, shame, or embarrassment, might lead to the desire #for their pupils to achieve high scores in whatever way seems possible. This might lead #to ‘teaching to the test’, with an undesirable ‘narrowing of the curriculum’. #We may also wish to consider the possibility of a test ''reinforcing ''some behaviour or #attitude rather than bringing about an otherwise unlikely behaviour. Thus students #may already work hard, and a test may simply motivate them to work harder. A learner #may constantly self-evaluate against internal or external criteria, and the test may #provide very useful additional criteria for this kind of comparison. Thus the relationship #between a test and its impact, positive or negative, might be less simple than at first #sight appears to be the case. The quality of the washback might be independent of the #quality of the test. #We might not #want to use the term ‘washback’ for the anxiety caused by having to take a test, #but might well want to apply it to syllabus or textbook design specifically based on a #test # #..' The Washback Hypothesis''' #''Some possible Washback Hypotheses'' #(1) A test will influence teaching. This is the Washback Hypothesis at its most general. #However, a second partly different hypothesis follows by implication from #this first one, on the assumption that teaching and learning are related, but #not identical: #(2) A test will influence learning. Since it is possible, at least in principle, to separate #the content of teaching from its methodology, then we need to distinguish #the influence of a test on the content of the teaching from its influence on #the methodology. Thus: #(3) A test will influence 'what 'teachers teach; and #(4) A test will influence 'how 'teachers teach; and therefore by extension from (2) above: #(5) A test will influence 'what 'learners learn; and #(6) A test will influence 'how 'learners learn. #However, perhaps we need to be somewhat more precise about teaching and learning, #in order to consider how quickly and in what order teachers teach and learners learn. #Hence: #(7) A test will influence the 'rate and sequence 'of teaching; and #(8) A test will influence the 'rate and sequence 'of learning. #Similarly, we may wish to consider explicitly both the quality and the quantity of #teaching and learning: #(9) A test will influence the 'degree and depth 'of teaching; and #(10) A test will influence the 'degree and depth 'of learning. #If washback relates to attitudes as well as to behaviours, then: #(11) A test will influence attitudes to the content, method, etc. of teaching and learning. #In the above, however, no consideration has been given to the nature of the test, or #to the uses to which scores will be put. Yet it seems not unreasonable to hypothesize: #(12) Tests that have important consequences will have washback; and conversely #(13) Tests that do not have important consequences will have no washback. #It may be the case that: #(14) Tests will have washback on 'all 'learners and teachers. #However, given what we know about differences among people, it is surely likely that: #(15) Tests will have washback effects for 'some 'learners and 'some 'teachers, but 'not 'for others. #Alderson writes: #I believe there is no longer any doubt that washback does indeed exist. But #we now know that the phenomenon is a hugely complex matter, and very #far from being a simple case of tests having negative impact on teaching. #The question today is not ‘does washback exist?’ but much rather what does #washback look like? What brings washback about? Why does washback #exist? #It seems that there is no way to generalize about washback at the present time. #Teaching and learning will be impacted in many different ways depending upon the #variables at play in specific contexts.What these variables are, how they are to be #weighted, and whether we can discover patterns of interaction that may hold steady #across contexts, is a matter for ongoing research. In the meantime, we need to #investigate washback for every context in which test use is hypothesized to impact #upon the process and content of teaching and learning.